Attitudes Toward Standardized Achievement Tests and Their Relation to Achievement Test Performance

1984 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann H. Karmos ◽  
Joseph S. Karmos
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Standardized Achievement Tests

The Use and Validity of Standardized Achievement Tests for Evaluating New Curricular Interventions in Mathematics and Science

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Sussman ◽  
Mark R. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Summative Evaluation ◽  
Validity Evidence ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Standardized Achievement Tests ◽  
Curricular Interventions ◽  
Mathematics And Science

We investigated the use and validity of standardized achievement tests for summative evaluation of 78 educational intervention projects funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) math and science education program. Investigators from 46 projects evaluated curricular interventions with standardized achievement tests as outcome measures. Twenty-five of the projects had potential validity problems related to a misalignment between the achievement test and the intervention. A closer analysis of 11 of those projects flagged as high risk for validity problems showed that only 6 projects attended to the validity of the test, and only 1 project provided adequate validity evidence. We conclude that there is widespread inappropriate use of achievement tests that threatens the validity of educational evaluations. To better support innovation, evaluators must dedicate more attention to the validity of the outcome measures they use.

scholarly journals Should Achievement Tests be Used to Judge School Quality?

2000 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott C. Bauer
Keyword(s):  
Language Arts ◽  
School Quality ◽  
Instructional Quality ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Local Study ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Standardized Achievement Tests

This study provides empirical evidence to answer the question whether student scores on standardized achievement tests represent reasonable measures of instructional quality. Using a research protocol designed by Popham and the local study directors, individual test items from a nationally-marketed standardized achievement test were rated by educators and parents to determine the degree to which raters felt that the items reflect important content that is actually taught in schools, and the degree to which raters felt that students' answers to the questions would be likely to be unduly influenced by confounded causality. Three research questions are addressed: What percentage of test items are considered suspect by raters as indicators of school instructional quality? Do educators and parents of school-age children differ in their ratings of the appropriateness of test items? Do educators and parents feel that standardized achievement test scores should be used as an indicator of school instructional quality? Descriptive statistics show that on average, raters felt that the content reflected in test questions measured material that is important for students to know. However, for reading and language arts questions, between about 20% to 40% of the items were viewed as suspect in terms of the other criteria.

Standardized Achievement Tests: How Useful for Special Education?

1978 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 448-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Jenkins ◽  
Darlene Pany
Keyword(s):  
Reading Achievement ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Second Grade ◽  
Single Test ◽  
Exceptional Children ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
Standardized Achievement Tests

The extent and direction of curriculum bias in standardized reading achievement tests are examined. Bias was estimated by comparing the relative overlap in the contents of four separate reading achievement tests with the contents of five commercial reading series at first and second grade levels. Overlap between each achievement test and each reading series is reported in terms of achievement test grade equivalent scores that would be expected given mastery of the words that appear both as content in a reading series and as achievement test items. Results indicate clear discrepancies between the grade equivalent scores obtained, both between tests for a single curriculum and on a single test for different reading curricula. The implications of the apparent curriculum bias of achievement tests are discussed as they relate to evaluation of teachers, children, and curricula; to reading placement; and to the identification and classification of exceptional children.

Test-Item Tendencies: Curiosity and Caution

1977 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 10-13
Author(s):  
Leroy G. Callahan
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
School System ◽  
Test Item ◽  
Standardized Test ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
School Systems ◽  
Governmental Agencies ◽  
Standardized Achievement Tests ◽  
Standardized Test Performance

Standardized achievement tests have attracted the favor, or flak, of citizens in our society for many years. Educators have used information from them for both summative and formative eva luation purposes. Summatively, standardizedtest results may be used to judge the degree to which a student, class, or school system has achieved desired learnings in a particular area of study. The objectivity of standardized tests fu rther allows com pari ons with other students, classes, or school systems. Today, millions of dollars are dispensed annually by governmental agencies based on standardized-test performance of students. Formatively. these test res ults may be used by teachers or cu rriculum workers in determining program directions and emphases. Whether for formative or summative purposes. caut ion has always been urged in interpreting standardized-test perform ance of students. These urgings are not always heeded.

Learning Disabled Students' Spontaneous Use of Test-Taking Skills on Reading Achievement Tests

1985 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Scruggs ◽  
Karla Bennion ◽  
Steven Lifson
Keyword(s):  
Reading Achievement ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Strategy Use ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Test Taking ◽  
Level Of Confidence ◽  
Resource Rooms

The present investigation was undertaken to identify the type of strategies learning disabled (LD) students employ on standardized, group-administered achievement test items. Of particular interest was level of strategy effectiveness and possible differences in strategy use between LD and nondisabled students. Students attending resource rooms and regular third-grade classes were administered items from reading achievement tests and interviewed concerning the strategies they had employed in answering the questions and their level of confidence in each answer. Results indicated that (a) LD students were less likely to report use of appropriate strategies on inferential questions, (b) LD students were less likely to attend carefully to specific format demands, and (c) LD students reported inappropriately high levels of confidence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document